Saturday, August 29, 2015

Defining the Brexit vision

We have spoken this week of the need for a new vision and a better
alternative to what David Cameron can offer us. It must be grounded in
political reality and it must be convincing.

We've heard critics saying that we must simplify our message, but that
does not mean we should dumb it down. To peddle a simplistic mantra is
to undermine our own credibility. That means we will have to outline in
detail what we want, and where we want to be. Only then can we sell it.
The task is to creatively sell the product we have, not the product we
wish we were selling.

Before we can sell the product we must define it. Our vision is for the
United Kingdom as a self-governing, self-confident, free trading nation
state, releasing the potential of its citizens through direct democratic
control of both national and local government and providing maximum
freedom and responsibility for its people.

The history of Britain for a thousand years has been as a merchant and
maritime power playing its full role in European and world affairs while
living under its own laws. It is our view that the UK can flourish
again as an independent state trading both with our friends in the EU
and the rest of Europe, while developing other relationships throughout
the world as trading patterns evolve.

For an age the United Kingdom has freely engaged as an independent
country in alliances and treaties with other countries. It has a long
history of entering into commercial agreements and conventions at an
inter-governmental level. We wish to uphold that tradition.

The ability of the people of the United Kingdom to determine their own
independent future and use their wealth of executive, legislative and
judicial experience to help, inspire and shape political developments
through international bodies, and to improve world trade and the
wellbeing of all peoples will only be possible when they are free of the
undemocratic and moribund European Union.

The prosperity of the people depends on being able to exercise the
fundamental right and necessity of self-determination, thus taking
control of their opportunities and destiny in an inter-governmental
global future with the ability to swiftly correct and improve when
errors occur.

Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of
its people who will take on greater participation and control of their
affairs at local and national level. Our vision fosters the
responsibility of a sovereign people as the core of true democracy.

With that in mind, we suggest that leaving the EU alone does not
accomplish this, but it is the first step on a long road. For us to
embark on this journey we must set out in detail what it looks like and
why it's worth the risk.

A simplistic slogan works well on Twitter, but it is for us to provide
substance to it in order to convince opinion formers. Primarily we must
convince both the public and business that Brexit does not interrupt
trade or threaten jobs. In this, guesswork and blind optimism is
insufficient. Detail, realism and pragmatism are our watch words. Unless
we define what Brexit looks like, the inherent credibility deficit will
be our undoing. Winging it did not work for Ukip and it won't work for
us.

We are asking for a a big change involving a massive diplomatic effort
with a period of some uncertainty, so as much as we must reassure, we
must also answer the question of "why bother?".
Where is the value in such an undertaking and what is the incentive?

We can present incentives but they have to be genuine motivators. Saying
that families will be £933 better off if they vote out is a wet lettuce
of an incentive. We've seen the same stunt pulled in elections and it
no more works in a referendum than it does in an election. Also, simply
saying we can "trade with the rest of the world" sounds like empty
rhetoric because it is empty rhetoric.

Leaving the EU in reality means only marginal immediate benefits and
while there are beneficial freedoms it will take time to fully realise
them and put them to work. The Yes campaign will succeed in making that
case. What have we got that makes it worth the hassle?

While we are in the EU, we are not (as eurosceptics have it) run by the
EU. We're just told what to and on what terms. There is no flexibility
and there is no redress. Change takes a long time time, and reform
proves impossible. This diminishes us and our standing in the world.
There is an alternative and it's better than anything Mr Cameron can
offer.

Outside the EU, the UK would also be able to craft its own external
trade policy. In this, it could act independently, it could act with
other blocs such as EFTA, or we could take collective action through ad
hoc alliances. This gives us the agility we presently lack.

There are sometimes gains to be made from negotiating as part of a
formal bloc, not least for the protection afforded in times of financial
crisis, and on matters of common interest. It is a means of spreading
the administrative burden. Sometimes the added strength and resource of
the UK, to help further spread the load is advantageous. At other times
we need to be doing what's best for our unique emerging industries.
While the EU negotiates on our behalf we cannot do this. We cannot get
what's best for Britain and we cannot prioritise to our advantage.
Nothing David Cameron will propose can speak to that.

There are many disadvantages to formal collective action as we have seen
in attempts to reform the CAP. We need the flexibility to make
arrangements which give us the benefits of EU membership while
minimising the disadvantages. We also need to avoid the disadvantages we
might suffer as an independent actor, while making the most of
opportunities presented by changes in global trading patterns.

We must offer a solution that allows us to be full participants in the
single market but also the freedom to be the architect of a global
single market. Mr Cameron can only offer us more of the same. We must
offer the best of both worlds. We've been sold the notion that we can't
have our cake and eat it. We need to show that we can not only eat our
cake, we can have seconds too.

What we cannot afford is a message into which the subtext suggests we're
going to take our bat home and shut ourselves off from the EU. We're
not looking to make the EU an enemy, we're just looking to redefine our
relationship, not only for our own sake but for theirs as well.

That said, this alone is insufficient. As someone who writes on matters
of trade and foreign policy it is immensely frustrating getting people
engaged. The fact is that most people couldn't give a tinkers damn about
trade or foreign affairs. We have delegated such to our politicians and
in turn they have delegated it to the EU. Consequently, while important
to win the trade argument in order to influence the influential, there
needs to be an incentive for ordinary people too.

The EU promotes every day concerns such as roaming charges, visaless
travel and every day practicalities - along with rights and protections
that we would otherwise perhaps not enjoy. They are marginal benefits
but that is the level on which many will make their choice. People will
be worried about their employment protections and basic rights. They
worry that Brexit gives the Tories leeway to be as ruthless as legend
has it. Again we need not only to reassure but to incentivise.

Consequently we have to build a movement that carries momentum beyond
the referendum so that we can make demands once we are out. If we are
taking some of the power back for the people, then why not all of it?

That is where we can make the case for a British bill of rights, direct
democracy, real localism and constitutional rights. If we're just going
to quit the EU and leave it there then we've left the job half done,
putting the power back in the hands of the people who did all this to us
in the first place. I don't know about you but the prospect of that
excites me more than Matthew Elliot telling me I'll have an extra £933 a
year.

As much as anything it sidesteps the necessity to take a divisive
position on climate change, tax, health, education or the environment.
The selling point is that it puts us in control and we get to decide
what's best for us - and we own our decisions.

In that regard, we cannot make this referendum EU centric. This is a
question about the future, who we are and where we want to be. The final
battle in the last three months of the campaign will not be about
whether the EU started the conflict in Ukraine, or whether we should
take back our fishing grounds or even bent bananas. It won't be us vs.
the EU. It will be us vs. David Cameron. The respective merits of the EU
will take a back seat. It will be a poll on whether the public believe
Cameron has scored a good deal and whether our vision holds water.

We must run a positive and a negative campaign. In so doing we must
ignore the Yes campaign. That's a decoy and a fight we don't need to
have. We should instead attack Cameron's credibility and
trustworthiness, but on the positive side, we show the public that
rather than griping about the EU, we have something bigger, bolder,
lasting and achievable on offer. We must make Brexit the high watermark
for the existing establishment orthodoxy and show that we will go the
rest of the way.

If the campaign is instead an all signing, all dancing whinge about the
EU, then I need to know now so I can engage in something more profitable
and productive. It's boring and it's a losing argument made by losers.
Life is too short.